AJPhilips:

We’re making no progress here, are we? I’m wondering whether to end it all by agreeing to disagree. But let’s try just once more to see if we can stop going around in circles.

Maybe that word “truth” is the problem. You are insisting that “truth” can only be ascertained through logical empirical methods. Well, this is certainly the case in science. You suggest that I am referring to “religious truth”. I think I would avoid that term because it would probably mean “truth” in the form of propositional statements to which a proponent demands assent, and this is not at all what I am referring to.

<< You can arrive at the truth using the imagination and the unconscious, just as you can with guesses. But like I asked before, how do you test the reliability and the accuracy of those methods of arriving at the truth? >>

Firstly, we can use imagination, but the notion of “using” the unconscious is laughable! Investigate it, question it maybe ...but not “use”. The unconscious is not a tool: it is reality.

A group of people can look at the tree across the road and confidently agree that they are all observing “a tree” -- the same object. That’s empirical observation. So “testing” the existence of the tree would involve a simple yes or no from each of the observing group. If they agree, the existence of the tree is accepted.

What if our group of people observe the tree across the road intuitively rather than empirically? Person A says that’s the hope of the future world – cleaner air, continued supply of fruit and timber. Person B says it’s how I see myself – depending on mother earth, bending to the winds of fortune, reaching for something out in the universe etc. Person C says that’s our society – all growing from the same soil but branching in many different directions. Person D says that’s all of those things and more.

Continued...

AJPhilips (continuing):

These people are taking the tree as a symbol; their observations may not be amenable to a scientific truth-test, but each is meaningful and valuable to the observer because it represents a genuine aspect of her inner life. Each observer is being “true” to herself. And in being honest and sincere in their statements they are being “true” to each other.

A symbol is not a sign. A sign relates to its referent in one-to-one correspondence as when scientists measure phenomena as mathematical data. A symbol refers to multiple things simultaneously and so must be recognised and understood by a mode of cognition different from that used in science. The Myer-Briggs Personality Type Inventory calls it “intuition”, a name derived from the work of Carl Jung. Intuition deals with symbols, metaphors and myths.

Exploring the unconscious or spirituality requires “inner work”. Studying one’s own dreams and imaginings to uncover meaning, or analysing one’s own speech and behaviour to discover intentions or motives of which one was unaware at the time – these require much private perception, inner dialogue, and so on. We can “test” the conclusions reached by looking for internal consistencies, perhaps.

Other “testing” is possible. In outer life we can engage in dialogue with others about our observations with elaboration, mutual clarification, questioning, and reflection. We can compare and contrast our observations and interpretations with those of other people as expressed through books and other media. In doing so we may confirm to ourselves that our findings about our inner life were correct, or that they require correction and further investigation.

To me and very many others, faith is not so much about “beliefs” -- giving assent to propositions like “God exists.” Essentially it is following a path towards wholeness, or integrity of being, or “individuation” as Jung called it. I elaborated on all this in my last article, which you read. You seem to take “truth” as a transcendental concept or goal, whereas I and my fellow travellers know “truth” as the road we choose and the manner of the travelling.

Peace be with you.

Grateful,
re: Is it always true of a human-being who is capable of preventing harm that they are “malevolent” if they do not prevent harm? Are you saying that you cannot think of a single example? Think: “lesser of two evils”.

Human beings do not claim to be omnipotent; certainly not in the sense that 'people of the book' claim that their God is omnipotent.
A human being is doing the best he or she can if they make decisions that minimise harm.

But if there is a omnipotent god who allows a child to die prematurely of a brain tumour that god would be malevolent. Don't give me the nonsense that we cannot know the mind or the ways of that god.

I have stated elsewhere that I provide some voluntary care for a mother under 40 who has been diagnosed with a debilitating gene deficiency inherited from both parents. I am trying to minimise the harm to that woman and her children. The deficiency is an evolutionary fault which any competent omnipotent god, if existent, could have prevented. He or she didn't and is therefore malevolent so why call him god?

Glen C
If you were by yourself in a time of great need, or in some type of crisis, and you also knew that others knew that you were in some type of crisis, but they did not offer you their prayers or their hope that you could overcome your difficulties, then do you think this would be rather discouraging?

I would think it would be rather discouraging.

I also think that it is now a trendy thing, particularly for academics to malign religions and prayer, but so many of these people live with the safety net of the taxpayer’s purse.

Take away the taxpayer’s purse, and the situation would be quite different, and they would not be so ready to malign religion and prayer.

I other words, they are too well fed.

Foyle you write

'But if there is a omnipotent god who allows a child to die prematurely of a brain tumour that god would be malevolent. Don't give me the nonsense that we cannot know the mind or the ways of that god.'

You are pretty selective when you consider the millions of people who die due to promiscuity. Thousands of baby and children die of aids which was largely spread by the homosexual community and then by other immoral human behaviour. We do a pretty good job at violating every law of God that brings death

runner,
A just god would not have allowed the HIV virus to jump the species "gap" between green monkey, a reasonable close relative in evolutionary terms as proved by the jump, and the human race.

If your god was omnipotent and just he would promptly cure children suffering on account of any parental misdeed. Maybe you should just accept that we are alone and if each of us lived Socrates' examined life we would all be better off.

From your previous comments you appear to believe in authoritarian concepts of morals and ethics. I tend to find Christopher Hitchens' approach much more sensible, "The whole apparatus of absolution and forgiveness strikes me as positively immoral, while the concept of revealed truth degrades the whole concept of free intelligence by purportedly relieving us of the hard task of working out ethical principles for ourselves."
(Christopher Hitchens - Letters to a Young Contrarian –Ch. 9 P58)